Save money. Live better?

First step: Welcome to Carrie's Environmental Sociology blog! I'm so glad you're here.

 

Next step: Please pick the music that makes you feel the most comfortable. Do you like nonlyrical, classical music, or do you function better while jamming to Miley? The choice is yours! Go ahead and play your choice as you continue through this blog.

 

 

I guess I should change the color scheme here if I really want people to get the most out of this blog experience.. Does this bright purple make you feel alert and enthusiastic? Or maybe you'd enjoy a calming light blue? Oh, I know. Green. Now you're calm, but also attentive. And you have suddenly become an environmental activist simply by reading in green! Good for you -- keep up the good work -- you're making a difference!

 

These variables are all a part of the supermarket science called "atmospherics." Supermarkets have spent decades and millions of dollars trying to figure out exactly what components make people want to spend more time in their stores and buy compulsively. They have determined that your time in a supermarket should not be an unpleasant errand, but rather an experience to be had and enjoyed. Atmospheric sciences involve variables such as the right music, the best colors, and the most inviting smells. When correctly achieved, atmospherics reach a very specific goal: happy customers happily spending their money, thereby creating happy retailers.

 

Isn't it nice when we're all just so damn happy?



 

The problem is that we're not all that happy. Turn off the music-- we all know that classical music puts us to sleep and that no one looks sexy while licking a sledge hammer.

As this chapter in Stuffed and Starved discussed, the level of perfectionism that supermarkets such as Walmart has achieved might not be so perfect. It has created a world full of rats. We scurry around supermarkets looking for a specific item, but often we get distracted by brightly colored signs or alluring baked goods. Yet we remain under the impression that we are the deciders of our purchases. As Patel said on page 226, "shoppers' freedom of choice was born in a cage."

Not only have the supermarkets turned us into rats, they have indeed become the Vipers, predating on us and tracking our every move. Through the use of loyalty cards, they know exactly what we buy, where we buy things, and how often we shop. Considering this enormous invasion of privacy, maybe it shouldn't be such a surprise that Walmart has one of the most powerful computers in the United States, second only to the Pentagon. Coincidence?

The world of supermarkets comes both with good aspects and bad. They kill smaller, local groceries. That's bad. Walmart alone employs 2.1 million people worldwide. That's good. They are big enough that they have undeniable authority within the government and are allowed to bypass rules that inconvenience them. That's bad (really, reeeeeally bad). They provide low prices and  convenience to their consumers that cannot be matched by their competitors. Dammit, that's really good.

So the question raised in this chapter is this: does the CONVENIENCE of supermarkets outweigh all of the social inequality, the unethical labor practices, and the sexism that accompanies a supermarket? The United States and many other countries seem to believe so. The choice to shop in them lies in the hands and in the wallets of the consumers, and it is clear that, while we may bitch about the demise of the Mom-and-Pop Groceries, we love pledging our allegiance to Walmart. Other countries, such as France, have decided that they don't need to rely on multi-billion dollar supermarket corporations to survive. If the people of the United States chose to support operations such as farmers' markets and community cooperatives, we would be set free from the shackles that we voluntarily lock on every time we step foot into a supermarket. Believe it or not, such places exist. You might even be able to find them every Saturday morning, just 6 miles down the road... Click here to learn more about this magical place

Thank you for visiting and please come again soon! (But really-- leave.)

It's a trap.

Never go to the store hungry. I did that the other day and bought oreos, cheese-its, ramen noodles, and the things that I actually went to the store to buy.

I thought this was the only problem with going to the supermarket until I read the chapter Checking out of Supermarkets in the book Stuffed and Starved by Raj Patel. 

Atmospherics. Ah, there's the problem. We go into the store to get some milk for our cereal at home, but we have to walk all the way to the back just to get it.This gives the supermarket time to trap us with a song making us more comfortable and at ease in the store then with each step we see different things on sale tempting us to buy them. 

Never go to the store. I did that the other day when all I needed was sugar, but naturally by the sugar was the cookie mix and then the song "Pour Some Sugar On Me" by Def Leppard came on and it made me want to shop a little bit longer, like really, who can leave in the middle of that song? Then I decided to have a baking party and bought brownie and cupcake mix as well. I spent $20 instead of $3. Damn. 

Monsanto's winning the World Food Prize?

Check out this link:

http://action.sumofus.org/a/world-food-prize-monsanto-syngenta/ 

In an obscene development, a Monsanto executive is winning this year’s “Nobel Prize of agriculture” -- the prestigious World Food Prize -- for creating GMOs.Receiving it legitimizes the sort of rampant genetic modification Monsanto pioneered, and helps validate a ruthless business model that impoverishes farmers and monopolizes our food.

If that wasn't baffling enough, the founder of Syngenta, the same biotech giant joining Bayer in suing Europe to keep selling bee-killing pesticides, will also win the prize -- and with it, a share of the $250,000 prize money. We cannot allow this prize to legitimize frankenfoods and bee killers. The ceremony is in less than two weeks, so we need to act now.

Tell the World Food Prize Foundation not to reward Monsanto and bee-killer Syngenta’s outrageous practices.

Winning this prize will encourage the wider use of genetically engineered cropsand be a huge obstacle to those fighting to investigate the long-term effects of its frankenseeds -- which is exactly what Monsanto wants. In 2008, Monsanto made a $5 million pledge to the World Food Prize Foundation, part of its plan to buy the credibility it can’t legitimately earn. By handing its benefactor this award, the Foundation risks undermining the credibility of the most respected prize in agriculture.

In protest, 81 Councilors of the World Future Council have penned a statement blasting the World Food Prize Foundation for betraying its purpose. In the words of the esteemed authors: “GMO seeds reinforce a model of farming that undermines sustainability of cash-poor farmers, who make up most of the world's hungry… The most dramatic impact of such dependency is in India, where 270,000 farmers, many trapped in debt for buying seeds and chemicals, committed suicide between 1995 and 2012.”

Despite the criticism, Monsanto and Syngenta executives are set to receive their prize on October 17 -- a slap in the face to everyone harmed by their products. We don’t have much time, so we need to publicize this obscene decision -- if enough of us get word of this out, and let people know the World Food Prize is threatening its reputation, we can shame it into choosing a more suitable candidate.

Genetically-modified crops do not deserve the highest praise. Don’t reward Monsanto and Syngenta.

Soy... What is the Truth?

Soy just seems to be about everywhere in regards to food. There is a classic football quote that pertains to defensive backs, one of my favorites of all time being, Champ Bailey, a Denver Bronco. This quote would go like so with Champ Bailey put into it, "20% of the Earth is covered by land, the other 80% is covered by Champ Bailey." That, may not be a false statement, but who's counting? The point being made here is when it comes to food, it seems as if soy is Champ Bailey. Is there a quarterback safe from Champ Bailey? Is there a food item today safe from soy?

Obviously when we look at the negative effects of soy we are not referring to pure soy. Some examples of pure soy would be miso, edemame, etc. We are more referring to negative effects of soy when it comes to lecithin. Lecithin is key to mass production of food and comes from the soybean. Lecithin, from soy, allows supermarkets and fast food organizations keep their food longer and also makes the food immune to strenuous transportation. In short, it is a just a chemical to make food last longer, not improve its nutritional value. Therefore, it is the soy that is hidden in our foods that we need to find the truth about. There is such a thing as good soy and bad soy, which I mentioned earlier that can be more looked into with this Dr. Oz video found here: http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/not-all-soy-products-are-created-equal

Another misuse that soy has served is it's role in animal feeding by agribusinesses. Soy is a high source of protein, which in its pure state is good for you, but soy is being used as cheap protein for the animals we eat. A high dose of soy is used in Chicken McNuggets because of the soy that is given to chickens by the company Cargill is then given to McDonald's as their chicken supply. McDonald's named Cargill their supplier of the year for their chicken produce, imagine that. However, you are getting far from a healthy protein chicken. You are truly ingesting empty calories that hold no nutritional value.

Another interesting fact about soy is the health craze about soy burgers. Soy burgers are simply processed food items that are actually being stripped of their nutritional value. Before we decide to buy the "healthy" soy burger maybe we should decide to go purchase healthy meat and cook it ourselves. Unfortunately, we cannot even trust that to help us get untainted food because majority of the meat in supermarkets come from soy fed animals which strips away the nutritional value.

The truth is, soy AKA Champ Bailey, has us all covered and no one and is escaping the coverage. We are trapped by soy!

McSoybeans, McSlavery, and McNuggets

McSoybeans, McSlavery, and McNuggets

            Throughout class we have referred to social constructions of convenience, in which today we primarily think of cell phones, and transportation, but this chapter exposes another construction that controls almost every aspect of the agricultural community; soy beans. I don’t know much about farming but, I realize the difference between corn and soybeans, and you would have to be blind not to notice the immense amount of soy beans produced in Indiana alone. My thinking, and maybe that of others like me while driving past these large soybean fields, goes like this “I eat a lot of corn, people like corn, animals probably eat corn too, but I’ve never even seen a soybean, I know soy milk is a thing, but there’s no way all of those little green plants are used to make fake milk,” and my inquisitiveness stops there. However, Patel was nice enough to show me why all those soybean plants are there, and even more prevalent in Brazil, but I’m a visible learner so I’ll follow one of his trips through soy bean life in pictures.

Step 1: Illegal farming, crushing, and transportation throughout Brazil

Cargill, based in the United States, is the largest soy producer and exporter in the Amazon, operating 13 silos in the heart of the Amazon rainforest, most of them illegally, and Green Peace tried to stop them with this banner.

Cargill, also employs the lax laws usually characteristic of countries in the global south, allowing slaves to cut down rain forests, farm soy beans, crush them, and transport them to the coast without pay. Illegally built ports create coastal agri-business hot spots that attract other black market commodities, such as drug and human trafficking.

Step 2: More Bad Stuff With a Touch of Legality

Once the soy has been illegally farmed, processed, and shipped, while simultaneously contributing to negative externalities such as human trafficking, deforestation, and removal of indigenous communities, there is still more harm to be done. But now that we’ve followed our soy past the line of poverty and into the global north of the UK, human slavery is less kosher, but CAFO’s employed by Sun Valley, a division of Cargill, are preferred (notice the lack of Sun or Valley). A pinkish McNugget slime is also created.

Lastly, these soy fattened chickens, products of slavery and deforestation, are slaughtered processed and shipped to McDonald’s. Yum.

Now I know why all these soy beans are there, and I still enjoy McDonalds, because Step 1 isn’t in my backyard. But for those that experience Step 1 first hand, affluent MST societies were created. And maybe the silver lining of this story rests in the hands of a community of farmers that, although a little misunderstood, are “not only producing new kinds of farming but new kinds of people.” A true democracy exists here, and reminds us that “though most of us live under what’s called a democracy, we’ve never tasted the real thing. And by precisely this token, we’ve never owned the mistakes that have come of poor democratic decisions- we’ve merely had them thrust upon us.” The idea of providing for ourselves has been tossed around in conversation, but finds a fruitful fruition throughout communities in Brazil. Americans may find the system radical, but a fix to hunger for everyone, and not just the majority, might have its roots in these communal farming methods.

 And in keeping with the pictures, these functional communities might be impossible and radical (The Village), or a possibility that humanity has yet to accept (MST).  

Its Just a Bean. What's the Big Deal?

The soybean is a simple vegetable that has become to be a very important part of the United States economy. It is that secret ingredient that makes massive chocolate production possible. Soybean oil is the main oil used for frying. This means most fast food industries use this oil to fry the French fries and chicken nuggets we consume. The soybeans, themselves, feed the animals that we then send to slaughter. This little bean comes full circle. It feed the animals we eat, and then allows us to fry those animals up. Wow! What a helpful vegetable.

Soybeans are not just a useful ingredient in food. They can be used as a food on their own. Some Asian countries have enjoyed using soybeans as a substitute for meat. Soybeans have many of the essential proteins our bodies need. They are low in fat, and full of protein. Since they are so good for us, why aren't most people eating them?

Through some searching, I was able to find this interesting video. It makes me wonder how "good" soybeans actually are.

Since soy is such an issue, why do people still produce it? Soybeans can be good for the environment. They are able to replace loss nutrients in the soil. This was an extremely important function after the Dust Bowl. The land had become unhealthy and dying. The soybean was used as a way to improve the soil back to a point where it was fertile again. As helpful as that was, the soybean is still not a wonderful vegetable that people may think.

Soy is all around us. It is almost impossible to go a day without being in contact with it. Soybeans go by many names and many forms in the world. This makes it even more difficult to deal with. Soybeans have become like corn: a new "amazing" food that is in everything, but no one knows it. Soybean farmers get huge subsidies to raise their crops. From the looks of it, soy products are going to be around for a long time. Hopefully our economy can last as long.

Birth rates in the US

I would like to take a few steps back to last week when we discussed Malthusianism and birth/death rates. I recently came across an article that discussing US birth rates and found it quite interesting. In class we discussed reasons for the rise and fall of birth rates (as shown on page 115 in chapter 4). We primarily discussed those reasons as being environmental (such as poor living conditions leading to higher death rates), and economic (having more children for work purposes). This article below references recent low birth rates due to economic and educational values. The US birth rate is at an all time low as of 2012. The records used for the below article state that rates are 63.0 births to every 1,000 women. I don't know about anyone else but I found that very surprising. Because families do not have a demand for children to complete labor tasks families are having fewer children. This should be seen as a positive attribute to the environment not using as many recourses and helping cost efficiency. However, the article argues that the increase of lower birth rates hurts us as a national labor force. With the decrease of recent birth the young workers labor pool is becoming scarce and will slowly begin effecting the economy as a whole.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/06/news/economy/birth-rate-low/index.html 

I also came across a short video clip discussing the resent fall in birth rates all over the world. I found it interesting one of the points it touches upon is women's education. Because women across the country are being more educated in various areas they are putting off family and marriage to continue education goals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOuzC0UMBHQ 


The question this sparked in my mind was: Do you believe birth rates have done down due to economic reasons or more due education reasons?